Bill raises union certification bar while opening fast-track decertification

What it does

This bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to make union elections easier to challenge and harder to certify. It requires secret-ballot elections with a two-thirds quorum threshold, extends the period during which workers can decertify a union if the union fails to bargain in good faith during initial negotiations, blocks the NLRB from using settlement agreements or unfair-labor-practice charges to delay elections, and makes it an unfair labor practice for unions to enter into "no-raid" agreements with other unions. The net effect is to shift power toward employers and workers seeking to decertify unions, while constraining union organizing and inter-union cooperation.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is not worker protection but rather a systematic tightening of union certification rules and loosening of decertification rules. The title 'Worker RESULTS Act' (Reforming Elections for Speedy and Unimpeded Labor Talks) frames the bill as pro-worker choice, but the operative provisions—two-thirds quorum, removal of procedural delays, decertification windows, and no-raid bans—function to weaken union organizing and certification while enabling faster decertification.

What the text implies

• The two-thirds quorum requirement (subsection c) means that even if a majority of voting employees select a union, the union is not certified unless at least two-thirds of ALL employees in the unit vote. This is a supermajority requirement disguised as a quorum rule and dramatically raises the bar for union certification.
• The decertification window (subsection a(1)(B)(ii)) opens automatically if the NLRB determines the union is not bargaining in good faith during initial negotiations. This creates a 90-day period (60–150 days post-determination) during which workers can file to decertify, compressing the time a newly certified union has to negotiate its first contract.
• Removal of the settlement bar (subsection d) means that if an employer and union settle an unfair-labor-practice charge, the NLRB can no longer use that settlement to delay an election. This removes a procedural tool that has historically protected union organizing by allowing time for the union to build support before a decertification vote.
• The no-raid ban (subsection h) makes it an unfair labor practice for unions to enter into agreements not to solicit or organize employees of a particular employer or trade. This restricts inter-union cooperation and solidarity, which have historically been used to prevent employers from playing unions against each other.
• The bill's requirement that parties file an 'offer of proof' when seeking to block an election (subsection f) and the 60-day impound limit on ballots create tight procedural windows that may prevent the NLRB from fully investigating unfair-labor-practice charges before certifying election results, potentially allowing tainted elections to stand.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

While the bill frames itself as protecting worker choice, its operative mechanisms systematically weaken union organizing and certification while strengthening employer and decertification campaigns. The two-thirds quorum requirement and secret-ballot mandate raise the threshold for union victory; the decertification window and removal of procedural delays compress the time unions have to negotiate first contracts; and the no-raid ban restricts union-to-union solidarity. Workers who want union r

Who stands to gain

• employers (reduced union organizing pressure, faster decertification, fewer procedural delays)
• anti-union consulting firms and legal services
• companies in industries with high union density (manufacturing, transportation, healthcare)

Named in the bill

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), labor organizations / unions, employers, health care institutions

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• Nov 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Nov 6, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. Those filings disclosed $760,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 94 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Bill Cassidy, the sponsor, reported $1,252,754 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• AFL-CIO — $760,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jan 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.